Right is Right

With everything, there is a definition. One of the primary reasons why a definition is set is so discourse can occur on a level playing field. We’ll experience it all the time. When we watch politicians discuss a piece of legislation, when we debate a topic with our friends or if we are trying to get a loved one to see our point, the objective is to help them see what we see, with the goal of having them think what we think. However, this is far from how people engage in argument, debate or negotiation in current times. The foundation by which we set our argument is equally important as it is winning the argument. The definition of a term or situation is usually the foundation or playing field that must be accepted by the parties of the argument, and this is where people get tripped up, most of the time. They think that their identity is made up of the definition that is set. This is the key reason why I think identity politics is not a beneficial way to “do” politics. When people are encouraged to decide on political matters based on their identity, the depth and metaphysical aspects of that individual aren’t in play. People have layers. The reasoning behind their logic reveals the type of layers they have, but that gets stifled, then no matter what morals or beliefs they have, they are expected to vote or think a certain way. This is a very dangerous manner in which the run a free society. When in deep discussion, identity must not play a part. The fallacy that comes into play, or a major fallacy that comes into play is the appeal to authority.

If I, as a christian, base my arguments on the Bible, I am forcing those who oppose my viewpoints to accept the premises by which I am conducting my conclusion. I will say, however, that arguing from my beliefs and voting from my beliefs are different. (One of the factors is due to the scope of the effect.) The underlying notion then would be that they are in agreement with my religion, but religion is highly subjective, maybe even the most subjective topic (one of the reasons why so many denominations and belief systems even in the christian realm exist.) Now, it’s not impossible to argue this way, but as soon as the opposition comes across a point they don’t agree with, they will dismiss the argument entirely. If an argument happens in this way, then the parties must be in foundational agreement. 

Without the use of religion, morals and ethics then should be the basis of reason, in as far as making legislation. The problem with this is that, currently, even morals and ethics take a subjective hit, due to it being treated like culture. What is right is right, no matter who sees it. The same criteria is accurate for wrong is wrong. Legislation and laws hit closer to home than what people expect, esp in education. The reason for this blog is not to persuade people to vote or act a certain way, but it is to shed light on why legislation and law making has turned awry. We use the phrase “ see eye to eye,” but I believe this is secondary. We need to be playing on the same level and field, which we are not. I will say that I am not for the liberal agenda, although you may have already noticed that. And a huge reason why I am not is because the policy that side of the aisle makes is out of emotion and emotion is fleeting and subjective. On the surface, it seems as though we are out of options, but I don’t think that is the case. Leaving it up to the government to decide what is right and what is wrong is dangerous. The perspective in which they govern is different from the public perspective. So then what is a solution? There are many ideas from “there is no solution” to “ having more freedom.” All of which are viable options which is why I say “a” solution and not “the.” We must first understand that it is the degree of the dilemma and the definition of terms along with the universal perspective of right and wrong (I use the term universal loosely.) We must understand and accept that laws and rules are meta. They have layers, as much as anything in life. 

Many get fooled into thinking that talking about a subject in one room with anther park is enough of the “level” field. Just because two groups are playing basketball at the same time at the same park does not mean they are playing the same game and anyone thinking that they are would be delusional. I accept the conclusion that legislation is difficult, but because it does reflect the current standing of society, it is worth being an active part of.